Twitter Open Access Report – 25 Mar 2014

Wellcome Trust Report: Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges. “This report was commissioned by a consortium of European research funding organizations led by the Wellcome Trust. The study was undertaken to stimulate thinking among research funders who have set up, or are considering setting up, mechanisms for direct “earmarked” funding of article processing charges (APCs) in open access (OA) journals. The report covers both full OA journals (referred to in the report as “full OA”, such as those published by Biomed Central and PLOS) and subscription journals which offer authors the possibility of making their individual articles OA by paying an APC. This latter category is known as “hybrid OA”. There are many full OA journals that are funded by means other than APCs and the term “gold OA” also includes these journals. When they are included in the discussion this will be make clear, the focus of the report is however on the segment of gold OA funded by APCs.” Full report here.
Source: @alpsp

Quantumplations: Wiley-Blackwell open access licenses – clarity needed. “Alongside the awesome Theo Andrew, I’ve been leading the crowd sourcing effort to explore the Wellcome Trust Article Processing Charge data (Original data found here). This effort is still on-going, so please do have a look if you have even a few minutes to spare. I’ve found an interesting case when looking at the licenses of work published in Wiley-Blackwell journals. Every Wiley-Blackwell article I’ve looked at so far makes the statement: “Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.” This isn’t my understanding of ‘Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5′ at all. CC BY (as it is otherwise known), allows for any use, including commercial use, as long as you “give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.” (Text taken from Creative Commons CC BY 2.5 human readable summary). Creative Commons have spent a lot of time ensuring that the licenses are incredibly easy to understand, but it seems the license statement here from the publishers is deliberately difficult to understand and contradicting the actual meaning of CC BY licenses. Have I gotten confused about Creative Commons licenses? Or have Wiley-Blackwell?” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Data Pub – Feedback Wanted: Publishers & Data Access. “We have generated a set of recommendations for publishers to help increase access to data in partnership with libraries, funders, information technologists, and other stakeholders. Please read and comment on the report (Google Doc), and help us to identify concrete action items for each of the recommendations here (EtherPad).” More here.
Source: @openscience

LSE Blogs: Wellcome Trust’s Open Access spend 2012-13: Are fees charged by major publishers creating a new serials crisis? “Publishers have reacted to open access mandates by offering hybrid “Open” options through Article Processing Charges. Ernesto Priego digs into the data released by the Wellcome Trust on the highest and lowest article processing charge expenditures in 2012-2013 and finds these figures reveal a mere inversion of the business model. Enabling Open Access costs money. But does it cost as much as reflected by the APCs in the Wellcome Trust dataset?” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Access Working Group: The sheer scale of hybrid journal publishing. “The last few years have seen a significant rise in what are termed ‘hybrid open access journals’, where only some of the articles are freely available to read and a subscription is still required to read the remainder. As many journals require payment from authors to publish in this fashion, then university libraries need to pay subscriptions to read the remaining articles, publishers are in effect being paid twice for the same work. With recently published data from the Wellcome Trust, the scale of this double charging has become much more clear. In Oct 2012 – Sept 2013, academics spent £3.88 million to publish articles in journals with immediate online access – of which £3.17 million (82 % of costs, 74 % of papers) was paying for publications that Universities would then be charged again for. For perspective, this is a figure slightly larger than the Wellcome Trust paid in 2012/2013 on their Society & Ethics portfolio. Only £0.70 million of the charity’s £3.88m didn’t have any form of double charging (ie, was published in a “Pure Open Access” journal) – with this total being dominated by articles published in PLOS and BioMed Central journals (68 % of total ‘pure’ hybrid journal costs, 80 % of paper total).” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Access Archivangelism: The Wellcome Trust’s Deep Pockets. “There’s no “Fools Green” just foolish OA policy (or non-policy). Green OA works perfectly well when it is effectively mandated (as it is by FRS in Belgium, U Liège, U Minho and others; see ROARMAP). FWF, for example, fails to (1) mandate immediate institutional deposit, irrespective of publisher embargo on OA, and fails to (2) make research evaluation and funding contingent on immediate institutional deposit, as the effective Green OA mandates do. This effectively makes compliance with the FWF “mandate” completely contingent on publisher policy. OeAW does much the same. It may seem more sensible to pay for Fools Gold than to think, pay attention to the empirical evidence, and design an effective policy, but in fact it’s a regrettable and needless waste of time and money.” More here.
Source: @domchalono

Richard Poynder – The State of Open Access. Final list of Q&As here.
Source: @alpsp

SPARC: Webcast: Libraries Leading the Way on Open Educational Resources. “In celebration of Open Education Week (March 10-15, 2014), SPARC brings you this free webcast to showcase how academic and research libraries are leading the way on campus for Open Educational Resources.” View here.
Source: @alpsp

OAPEN news: explaining the differences between DOAB and the OAPEN Library. View newsletter here.
Source: @DOABooks

Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Collection to become Open Access – Availability Status Online. “We have now begun the process of making the Pilot Collection available, discoverable and accessible on a Creative Commons licence via OAPEN, HathiTrust and the British Library. PDFs of 17 books have already become available via the OAPEN digital library and we are loading content onto the HathiTrust and British Library systems. We have added a new page to our website which provides access KU titles. This page also makes it possible to follow the progress of each book in the Pilot Collection as it becomes available: http://collections.knowledgeunlatched.org/collection-availability-1/ ” More here.
Source: @oatp

Hugh Rundle: Creative Commons, Open Access, and hypocrisy. “Rcently I had an experience that prompted me to change the Creative Commons licensing on this blog. I was contacted by a representative of McGraw-Hill seeking permission to include one of my blog posts in some school assessment software in the States. The request included a long and convoluted US tax form, and a draft contract with a space for me to name my price. I rapidly progressed from confusion to incredulity. Why would they think I wanted money so US state schools could use my publicly available blog post to test students’ comprehension skills? I’d licensed it CC-BY …oh. NC. This episode illustrated perfectly the criticisms that I’ve read recently of CC-BY-NC licenses. ‘Non Commercial’ is a fairly fuzzy concept. On the face of it, a consortium of US state schoolstesting their students seems obviously ‘non commercial’. Except they’ve contracted CTB/McGraw-Hill to handle copyright releases, and they are most certainly a for-profit outfit. Perhaps the Consortium charges schools to use their system, I don’t know. I do know that signing release forms and “fax or scan back to us” is a pain the arse that I don’t need when I’m on holidays and near neither a fax machine nor a scanner. Not that I’m near a fax machine at any time, except perhaps when I’m near a technology museum. ” More here.
Source: @RickyPo

Elsevier Still Charging For Open Access Copies, Two Years After It Was Told Of The Problem. “For some reason, Elsevier seems to take delight in being hated by the academic world. Its support for the awful Research Works Act back in 2012 led to a massive boycott of the company by researchers. More recently, it has cracked down on academics posting PDFs of their own research. Now Peter Murray-Rust, one of the leading campaigners for open access, has caught Elsevier at it again. Here’s a good summary of what happened from Mike Taylor, whose post “If Harry Potter Was An Academic Work” appeared on Techdirt recently:

1. Two years ago, I wrote about how you have to pay to download Elsevier’s “open access” articles. I showed how their open-access articles claimed “all rights reserved”, and how when you use the site’s facilities to ask about giving one electronic copy to a student, the price is £10.88. As I summarised at the time: “Free” means “we take the author’s copyright, all rights are reserved, but you can buy downloads at a 45% discount from what they would otherwise cost.” No-one from Elsevier commented.

2. Eight months ago, Peter Murray-Rust explained that Elsevier charges to read #openaccess articles. He showed how all three of the randomly selected open-access articles he looked at had download fees of $31.50. No-one from Elsevier commented (although see below).

3. A couple of days ago, Peter revisited this issue, and found that Elsevier are still charging THOUSANDS of pounds for CC-BY articles. IMMORAL, UNETHICAL , maybe even ILLEGAL. This time he picked another Elsevier OA article at random, and was quoted £8000 for permission to print 100 copies.”

More here.
Source: @OpenAccessMKD

Scholarly Kitchen: Wellcome Money — In This Example of Open Access Funding, the Matthew Effect Dominates. “The Matthew Effect derives its name from a Biblical parable in the Book of Matthew. The parable is best stated in modern language as, “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.” Recently, the Wellcome Trust published files showing where and how much it paid for article processing charges (APCs) for open access (OA) publication. The Matthew Effect seems to be present throughout the list. In the year covered (2012-13, as their fiscal year is not a calendar year), Wellcome spent over US$6.5 million on OA publication fees covering a set of 2,127 articles, for an average of US$3,055 per article. The minimum spent by Wellcome on an APC was US$75, while the maximum APC was nearly US$22,000, which was the APC for an OA book published by Macmillan, the parent of Nature Publishing Group. The highest article APC was US$10,000, which was for a publication called Public Service Review, a magazine apparently geared to policymakers in the UK. The publication may not be available any longer, as its web site is turning up missing. This was noted as well in Research Information, which states that, “it is difficult to find details of this journal and the URL listed for this journal in the Wellcome Trust’s document now appears to be available for sale.” Does Wellcome deserve a refund?The next most-expensive APC (US$9,500) is for Lancet Neurology, an Elsevier journal. In fact, Elsevier dominates the top APCs, as does Nature Publishing Group. PLOS varies, with high APCs for its selective journals and low APCs for PLOS ONE.” More here.
Source: @Science_Open

Footnote1: The Exploitative Economics Of Academic Publishing. “Taxpayers in the United States spend $139 billion a year on scientific research, yet much of this research is inaccessible not only to the public, but also to other scientists. This is the consequence of an exploitative scientific journal system that rewards academic publishers while punishing taxpayers, scientists, and universities. Fortunately, cheap open-access alternatives are not only possible, but already beginning to take root, suggesting a way forward to a more open and equitable system for sharing research.” More here.
Source: @SPARC_EU

Free UKSG webinar – Funding Body Open Access Requirements. “This Webinar will provide delegates with an overview of the Wellcome Trust and RCUK OA policies. It will discuss current levels of compliance, and key issues which need to be addressed if full OA is going to be realised. The Webinar will also discuss the recent study, led by the Wellcome Trust, which looked at what levers funders could pull to help encourage the development of an effective OA market for article processing charges. Date: Wednesday 26 March 2014. Time: 1500 GMT. Duration: 45 minutes including Q&A” More here.
Source: @oatp

Open Academic Journals Index. “Open Academic Journals Index (OAJI) is a full-text database of open-access scientific journals. Our mission lies in putting together an international platform for indexing open-access scientific journals. In a short-term perspective, we are considering calculating the journal Impact Factor. When it comes to calculating the impact factor, of great significance is how full the archive has gotten over the previous two years. For instance, the Impact Factor for 2012 is calculated based on the indicators for 2012—2013. The maximum value of the impact-factor is 1.000.” More here.
Source: @oatp

The Zoteroist: Invisible & Exciting: What’s New in Zotero 4.0.19. “Zotero just released version 4.0.18 and 4.0.19, with some major, mainly under the hood improvements. These changes aren’t obvious at first sight, but are a major improvement. There are three major improvements, as well as a couple of minor ones.” Updates include better metadata from PDFs, faster indexing and links in notes. More here.
Source: @martin_eve

Wiley introduces Altmetrics to its Open Access journals. “In May of last year, Wiley partnered with Altmetric to pilot alternative metrics across a number of subscription and open access journals. While more traditional measurements – such as citations and usage – assess the scholarly visibility of a paper, alternative metrics are emerging to measure social visibility by tracking online conversations around scientific articles. The results of the pilot weAltmetricre positive. Across the 6 journals included in the initial 6 month trial, 2,183 articles received an Altmetric score, indicating that a high proportion of articles were receiving attention and making an immediate impact. To date, around 40% of articles from the trial journals have achieved a score of 10 or above – remember, the Altmetric score is based on the number of individuals mentioning a paper, where the mentions occurred (e.g. a newspaper, a tweet) and how often the author of each mention talks about the article. So, the score reflects both the quantity of attention received, and the quality of that attention: a news story counts for more than a Facebook post; attention from a researcher counts more than attention from an automated Twitter bot.” More here.
Source: @KeitaBando

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *